View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions, and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
Province | Subbasin | % |
---|---|---|
Blue Mountain | Asotin | 100.00% |
|
Description: Page: 8 Photo 1: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 567 x 494 Description: Page: 8 Photo 2: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 567 x 491 Description: Page: 9 Photo 3: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 577 x 388 Description: Page: 9 Photo 4: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 594 x 388 Description: Page: 9 Photo 5: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 569 x 401 Description: Page: 9 Photo 6: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 562 x 401 Description: Page: 10 Photo 7: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 575 x 475 Description: Page: 10 Photo 8: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 567 x 477 Description: Page: 10 Photo 9: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 575 x 477 Description: Page: 10 Photo 10: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 577 x 477 Description: Page: 11 Photo 11: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 775 x 469 Description: Page: 11 Photo 12: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 599 x 450 Description: Page: 11 Photo 13: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 613 x 448 Description: Page: 12 Photo 14: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 923 x 544 Description: Page: 12 Photo 15: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 1002 x 545 Description: Page: 13 Photo 16: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 713 x 535 Description: Page: 13 Photo 17: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 817 x 613 Description: Page: 13 Photo 18: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 713 x 535 Description: Page: 14 Photo 19: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 923 x 594 Description: Page: 14 Photo 20: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 572 x 428 Description: Page: 14 Photo 21: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 571 x 426 Description: Page: 15 Photo 22: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 837 x 502 Description: Page: 15 Photo 23: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 642 x 465 Description: Page: 15 Photo 24: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 619 x 465 Description: Page: 16 Photo 25: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 452 x 417 Description: Page: 16 Photo 26: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 588 x 517 Description: Page: 16 Photo 27: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 760 x 454 Description: Page: 16 Photo 28: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 352 x 363 Description: Page: 17 Photo 29: Instream habitat enhancement work. Courtesy of Asotin County Conservation District. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 792 x 613 Description: Page: 17 Photo 30: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 476 x 500 Description: Page: 18 Photo 31: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 887 x 447 Description: Page: 19 Photo 32: ISCO Monitoring Station at the South Fork of Asotin Creek Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 1024 x 768 Description: Page: 20 Photo 33: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 756 x 566 Description: Page: 20 Photo 34: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 754 x 566 Description: Page: 20 Photo 35: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 756 x 567 Description: Page: 21 Photo 36: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 735 x 525 Description: Page: 21 Photo 37: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 735 x 524 Description: Page: 21 Photo 38: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 733 x 506 Description: Page: 21 Photo 39: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 733 x 506 Description: Page: 22 Photo 40: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 983 x 736 Description: Page: 22 Photo 41: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 983 x 738 Description: Page: 23 Photo 42: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 453 x 367 Description: Page: 23 Photo 43: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 538 x 480 Description: Page: 23 Photo 44: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 541 x 480 Description: Page: 23 Photo 45: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 316 x 256 Description: Page: 24 Photo 46: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 400 x 300 Description: Page: 24 Photo 47: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 400 x 300 Description: Page: 24 Photo 48: No caption provided. Project: 1994-018-05 Document: P118845 Dimensions: 400 x 300 |
To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"
To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page
Acct FY | Acct Type | Amount | Fund | Budget Decision | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FY2022 | Expense | $508,391 | From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) | FY22 SOY 1st Batch | 05/06/2021 |
FY2023 | Expense | $508,391 | From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) | FY23 SOY Budget Upload | 06/01/2022 |
Number | Contractor Name | Title | Status | Total Contracted Amount | Dates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
7638
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1999-052-00 ASOTIN CREEK FIVE YEAR MINIMUM TILL PROGRAM | Closed | $32,219 | 6/1/1999 - 10/31/2004 |
107 REL 1
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 2000-054-00 ASOTIN CREEK RIPARIAN FENCING | Terminated | $61,000 | 5/1/2000 - 12/31/2001 |
108 REL 1
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 2000-053-00 ASOTIN CREEK RIPARIAN PLANTING | Closed | $25,306 | 5/15/2000 - 8/31/2001 |
4051
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 2001-002-00 ASOTIN WATERSHED GRAZING BIOLOGICAL PLANNING | History | $1,600 | 3/20/2001 - 12/31/2002 |
5209
![]() |
US Forest Service (USFS) | 199401805 GIS MAPPING - ASOTIN CREEK WATERSHED | Closed | $7,419 | 3/21/2001 - 12/31/2003 |
5130
![]() |
US Forest Service (USFS) | 199401805 ASOTIN CREEK ISCO WATER/MACRO INV SAMPLE | Closed | $17,836 | 3/23/2001 - 7/31/2004 |
5207
![]() |
US Forest Service (USFS) | 2000-047-00 GIS MAPPING - ASOTIN CREEK WATERSHED | History | $0 | 3/23/2001 - 12/31/2002 |
4280
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1999-002-00 ASOTIN WATERSHED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION | History | $54,308 | 4/2/2001 - 3/15/2002 |
6202
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 199401805 ASOTIN CREEK CHANNEL, FLOODPLAIN/RIPARIAN RESTORATION | History | $14,209 | 8/13/2001 - 9/30/2004 |
6230
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1999-054-00 ASOTIN CREEK INSTREAM PROJECT MONITORING | History | $45,090 | 8/14/2001 - 9/30/2004 |
6224
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 2000-032-00 ASOTIN CREEK NATIVE TREE NURSERY | Closed | $7,839 | 8/14/2001 - 9/30/2001 |
6228
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 2000-054-00 ASOTIN CREEK RIPARIAN FENCING | History | $84,819 | 8/14/2001 - 9/30/2004 |
6221
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1997-080-00 ASOTIN CREEK UPLAND SEDIMENTATION REDUCTION | Closed | $10,980 | 8/14/2001 - 4/30/2004 |
6233
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1997-086-00 ASOTIN WATERSHED UPLAND BMP'S | History | $5,706 | 8/14/2001 - 5/31/2004 |
6436
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 2000-053-00 ASOTIN CREEK RIPARIAN PLANTING | Closed | $90,000 | 8/15/2001 - 12/31/2004 |
6420
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1999-060-00 ASOTIN COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATERSHED UPLAND | History | $43,431 | 8/15/2001 - 9/30/2004 |
6422
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1998-047-00 ASOTIN WATERSHED INFORMATION & EDUCATION | History | $8,443 | 8/15/2001 - 9/30/2004 |
7965
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1999-002-00 ASOTIN WATERSHED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION | History | $197,169 | 12/1/2001 - 9/30/2004 |
11847
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1999-060-00 ASOTIN COUNTY SIX-YEAR DIRECT SEED PROGRAM | History | $102,953 | 9/16/2002 - 9/30/2004 |
20086
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 ASOTIN MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM | History | $251,898 | 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005 |
24401
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM | History | $283,509 | 10/1/2005 - 12/31/2006 |
30748
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM | History | $254,001 | 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007 |
36126
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 199401805 EXP ASOTIN MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM | Closed | $215,989 | 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008 |
40721
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 199401805 EXP ASOTIN MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM | Closed | $297,616 | 1/1/2009 - 12/31/2009 |
45812
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 199401805 EXP ASOTIN MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM | Closed | $294,070 | 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 |
51042
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 199401805 EXP ASOTIN MODEL WATERSHED | Closed | $561,034 | 1/1/2011 - 12/31/2012 |
59991
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN CREEK WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT & RESTORATION | Closed | $350,647 | 1/1/2013 - 3/31/2014 |
65523
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN CREEK WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT & RESTORATION | Closed | $350,646 | 4/1/2014 - 6/30/2015 |
69521
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN COUNTY WATERSHED HABITAT ENHANCE & RESTORE | Closed | $525,650 | 7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016 |
72995
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN COUNTY WATERSHED HABITAT ENHANCE & RESTORE | Closed | $526,291 | 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2017 |
76246
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN COUNTY WATERSHED HABITAT ENHANCE & RESTORE | Closed | $538,791 | 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018 |
79638
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN COUNTY WATERSHED HABITAT ENHANCE & RESTORE | Closed | $537,541 | 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019 |
82619
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN COUNTY WATERSHED HABITAT PROTECT & RESTORE | Closed | $508,391 | 7/1/2019 - 6/30/2020 |
85356
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN COUNTY WATERSHED HABITAT ENHANCE & RESTORE | Issued | $508,391 | 7/1/2020 - 6/30/2021 |
88086
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN CREEK ENHANCEMENT & RESTORATION | Closed | $508,391 | 7/1/2021 - 6/30/2022 |
90556
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN CREEK ENHANCEMENT & RESTORATION | Issued | $508,391 | 7/1/2022 - 6/30/2023 |
CR-363605
![]() |
Asotin County Conservation District | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN CREEK ENHANCEMENT & RESTORATION | Pending | $1 | 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024 |
Annual Progress Reports | |
---|---|
Expected (since FY2004): | 24 |
Completed: | 12 |
On time: | 12 |
Status Reports | |
---|---|
Completed: | 69 |
On time: | 24 |
Avg Days Late: | 11 |
Count of Contract Deliverables | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Earliest Contract | Subsequent Contracts | Title | Contractor | Earliest Start | Latest End | Latest Status | Accepted Reports | Complete | Green | Yellow | Red | Total | % Green and Complete | Canceled |
20086 | 24401, 30748, 36126, 40721, 45812, 51042, 59991, 65523, 69521, 72995, 76246, 79638, 82619, 85356, 88086, 90556, CR-363605 | 1994-018-05 EXP ASOTIN CREEK ENHANCEMENT & RESTORATION | Asotin County Conservation District | 10/01/2004 | 06/30/2024 | Pending | 69 | 319 | 20 | 1 | 36 | 376 | 90.16% | 33 |
Project Totals | 69 | 319 | 20 | 1 | 36 | 376 | 90.16% | 33 |
Assessment Number: | 1994-018-05-NPCC-20230310 |
---|---|
Project: | 1994-018-05 - Asotin Creek Enhancement and Restoration |
Review: | 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review |
Approved Date: | 4/15/2022 |
Recommendation: | Implement |
Comments: |
Bonneville and Sponsor to take the review remarks into consideration in project documentation. [Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/] |
Assessment Number: | 1994-018-05-NPCC-20131125 |
---|---|
Project: | 1994-018-05 - Asotin Creek Enhancement and Restoration |
Review: | 2013 Geographic Category Review |
Proposal: | GEOREV-1994-018-05 |
Proposal State: | Pending BPA Response |
Approved Date: | 11/5/2013 |
Recommendation: | Implement with Conditions |
Comments: | Implement with conditions through FY 2015. Recommendation to combine scope and appropriate funding with Project #2002-050-00. ISRP qualifications #1 and #2 to be dealt with in contracting to better align with subbasin and regional planning efforts with project implementation priorities. ISRP qualification #3 (progress report) to be submitted to the ISRP for review by April 1, 2015. Funding recommendation beyond the start of FY 2016 dependent on favorable ISRP review. Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #4). |
Conditions: | |
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—ISRP qualifications #1 and #2 to be dealt with in contracting to better align with subbasin and regional planning efforts with project implementation priorities. | |
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #2—ISRP qualifications #1 and #2 to be dealt with in contracting to better align with subbasin and regional planning efforts with project implementation priorities. | |
Council Condition #3 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #3—ISRP qualification #3 (progress report) to be submitted to the ISRP for review by April 1, 2015. Funding recommendation beyond the start of FY 2016 dependent on favorable ISRP review. | |
Council Condition #4 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #4—Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #4). | |
Council Condition #5 Recommendation to combine scope and appropriate funding with Project #2002-050-00. |
Assessment Number: | 1994-018-05-ISRP-20130610 |
---|---|
Project: | 1994-018-05 - Asotin Creek Enhancement and Restoration |
Review: | 2013 Geographic Category Review |
Proposal Number: | GEOREV-1994-018-05 |
Completed Date: | 6/11/2013 |
Final Round ISRP Date: | 6/10/2013 |
Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) |
Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives This is a long-term, whole watershed "ridgetop to ridgetop" restoration project that has employed use of integrated restoration treatments (upslope, floodplain/riparian, and instream treatments). The Asotin County Conservation District manages the project and works with federal, state, and local agencies and landowners to identify and prioritize habitat restoration activities. It is an important regional program and facilitates collaboration between private landowners and agencies and enhances cost-sharing in an effort to improve riparian and aquatic habitat conditions. There has been a substantial amount of coordination and the completion of a wide array of important restoration work. It is stated that there have been large advances in habitat quantity and quality realized since beginning of work in the 1980s. Unfortunately there is no summary describing these changes, where they have occurred and what treatments, or combination of treatments appear to have been responsible for them. The project complements the Asotin Subbasin Plan, Snake River Regional Recovery Plan, WRIA 35 Watershed Plan, and the Asotin Creek Model Watershed effort. A stated in the proposal, the past approach has been site-scale and opportunistic and this proposal will employ the "Atlas Process" to develop a more strategic approach for restoration. As described, this process will synthesize data and GIS layers and use the TAC to identify priority locations (BSRs) and treatments. There are a number of issues that need to be considered: previous ISRP comments on geomorphic analysis and monitoring do not appear to have been fully addressed; the process does not appear to provide sufficient focus on past monitoring and lessons learned over the last 15+ years of implementation; as a whole watershed restoration project including a substantial upland component, it seems that the make-up of the TAC should be interdisciplinary and not limited to biologists; the description of how priorities will be set is vague and the role of the Stakeholder TAC (local experts) seems limited to only making recommendations on project feasibility. Looking at various reports and documents, via hotlinks in the proposal, it appears that there is a good deal of relevant information that was not included in the main body of the current proposal. One example is a wide range of public outreach and education activities. These have been ongoing for several years and likely have contributed to good landowner understanding and buy in to the restoration efforts and a higher level of understanding by residents, especially children and students, on the importance of healthy watersheds to fish and to humans. There are other examples including additional monitoring and a variety of lessons learned that were not presented or specifically referenced in the proposal. A video called “Ridgetop to Ridgetop” has been developed which is a very high quality product. The video should be very useful in attracting interest and support from landowners and the general public. This support is essential because habitat restoration often requires support of private landowners. It would be useful to get this video on the NPPC website. The video and presentation to the ISRP provide confidence that the program has made good progress, especially in regard to gaining support of private landowners. Four general objectives were briefly identified. These objectives should include quantitative metrics, that can be monitored, and a stated time frame for the expected outcomes. In other words, based on past experience, how much can be accomplished during the next project period? The objectives should also be linked to the four limiting factors that were identified in the proposal. LWD and bed scour were not directly addressed by the objectives. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results) It appears that there have been substantial accomplishments in this watershed and that they have addressed both valley bottom and upslope issues. There is very little discussion that quantitatively summarizes the extent and results of past restoration treatments. Similarly, there was very limited discussion regarding the many lessons that have likely been learned over the long history of restoration work. A positive aspect of the proposal is the recognition that a more strategic approach is needed for more effective restoration results. Unfortunately, the current approach appears limited to the instream and floodplain components of the project and does not consider upslope elements. Ideally, the proposal should have stated its initial quantitative objectives for each of its previous actions, such as miles of stream fenced and numbers of trees planted, and then describe what was accomplished and the associated results, for example reduced water temperature or healthier riparian vegetation. Information about accomplishments was provided in linked implementation reports, but a summary of this key information should have been in the proposal so that reviewers and the Council can readily see what has been accomplished. In the linked reports, it was not clear whether the reported activities achieved the initial objectives, in part because quantitative objectives probably were not developed for the initial projects. Proposals such as this should estimate what they hope to accomplish and then evaluate what was accomplished. This is not monitoring project effectiveness, rather it is documenting accomplishments, which is a task that should be easy to do. Presentation of this information would facilitate a roll-up of habitat accomplishments across all watersheds in the Columbia basin. The proposal attempted to address comments from the previous ISRP review. The program consulted with a BPA geomorphologist, but it is not clear to what extent the prioritization process will account for geomorphic processes, as suggested by the ISRP. The ISRP also asked for monitoring and assessment, but the sponsors have not addressed this issue other than to respond that the project is a habitat project, not RM&E. Some fish and habitat monitoring is being conducted by other entities such as WDFW and the State of Washington’s IMW. It appears that the annual implementation report contains much of this information even though the proposal does not. Evaluation of Results There appears to have been a good deal of productive work, coordination, and the completion of a wide array of activities over the life of this project. Unfortunately, there is a limited discussion of actual results other than the statement "to date, large advances in habitat quantity and quality have been realized." A specific example of where a description of results has not been provided is the channel, re-meander project that was completed in 2005 where nearly a mile of stream was treated on lower George Creek. The project was completed more than 7 years ago, and yet there is little discussion of the results of this very intensive, restoration treatment. Additional examples include reductions in sediment input from the use of no-till practices, revegetation of riparian areas and fencing and planting. There have clearly been important results from these treatments, but no quantitative measures or estimates are provided. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions There is a cursory discussion of emerging limiting factors that only addresses non-native plant species. Surprisingly, there is no discussion of climate change and possible effects on stream temperature, stream flow, or potential changes in riparian vegetation. Perhaps a key limiting factor, though not emerging, is private property ownership that might prevent priority actions. The proposal highlights cooperation with landowners, but it did not identify the number of priority actions that may be constrained by unwilling landowners. How will this compromise or adversely impact adjacent habitat restoration activities?Nevertheless, the ISRP was impressed with the informative presentation and video that documented significant progress in gaining support by private landowner to protect and restore habitat. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The proposal generally describes the type of actions that will be implemented as deliverables. The proposal should quantify these deliverables so that completed actions can be compared with what was proposed. For example, how many acres, or stream miles, of riparian vegetation is proposed to be planted during the project period? Each deliverable should have a quantitative objective so that progress against the objectives can be documented. Plus, it would be good to know how much might be accomplished with the proposed budget. This type of information is needed for habitat restoration efforts throughout the Columbia basin so that the Council and planners can readily see what is being proposed and what is being accomplished. No details are provided on when this work will be accomplished or evaluated. Methods or rationales to achieve objectives were not fully described. It is not clear how some deliverables will achieve the stated objective(s). For example, how will removal of noxious weeds reduce embeddedness in the stream channel? Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org Overall, this proposal is weak regarding comprehensive monitoring for a long-term, whole watershed restoration project. It is important that a coherent monitoring plan be developed for the watershed restoration program and is one that integrates the range of activities by all players. The monitoring plan should be strategic and build on experience gained in past efforts. It should also incorporate ongoing efforts such as those for the IMW being done by the State of Washington. Monitoring should include a base level of implementation and compliance monitoring for all SWCD projects. There is, and has been, a wide variety of monitoring activities over the long life of the project. Results of the evaluation of these efforts are not provided or discussed. A summary of past monitoring activities and findings is overdue for this project. As stated above, this is an IMW for the State of Washington, and there is monitoring for fish response to restoration ongoing. There is no discussion of results or discussion as to any linkage with other monitoring. Also, there is no mention of ISEMP/CHAMP or AEM or how this will be incorporated into the current plans for monitoring. These efforts may serve the needs for effectiveness monitoring if they are integrated with the ongoing habitat restoration effort.
The ISRP was impressed by the sponsor’s presentation and the video that documented the program’s success in gaining support by private landowners for habitat restoration activities. Communication with private landowners and gaining their support is a key achievement of this project. The ISRP is encouraged that this effort will lead to other willing participants in habitat restoration. The ISRP's qualifications should be addressed in contracting, and the ISRP would like to see a progress report in 2014. Qualifications include:
|
|
Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
Further discussion of the strategic planning and prioritization process and a timeline for completion of this planning/prioritization effort is needed. It is critical that the program utilize a strategic process to prioritize future projects. This is a very important component for ensuring effective use of funds and increasing the likelihood of a positive ecological response. Actions should not be undertaken unless they have been vetted through the evaluation and prioritization process.
|
|
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
Project objectives and proposed "deliverables" should be quantitative so that accomplishments can be better documented. For example, how many miles will be fenced and how many trees will be planted?
|
|
Qualification #3 - Qualification #3
Basic accomplishments should be quantified and documented in a report so that the Council knows what has been accomplished with the past funding. This should also include a summary of past monitoring results and major lessons learned.
|
|
Qualification #4 - Qualification #4
A coherent and comprehensive implementation and effectiveness monitoring plan is needed. After 15+ years of project implementation, this is important. Such monitoring is critical to directly assess the effectiveness or benefits derived from the project's habitat restoration activities. The sponsors acknowledge this and suggest that ongoing monitoring in the Asotin Basin, conducted by other entities, could be used to fill this need. More information is needed on what monitoring approaches will be used and how they will be tied to informing the location and/or design of future restoration actions. There are many "low to moderate" intensity techniques for monitoring project implementation and compliance that would provide useful information on the results of various treatment methods.
|
|
First Round ISRP Date: | 6/10/2013 |
First Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) |
First Round ISRP Comment: | |
1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives This is a long-term, whole watershed "ridgetop to ridgetop" restoration project that has employed use of integrated restoration treatments (upslope, floodplain/riparian, and instream treatments). The Asotin County Conservation District manages the project and works with federal, state, and local agencies and landowners to identify and prioritize habitat restoration activities. It is an important regional program and facilitates collaboration between private landowners and agencies and enhances cost-sharing in an effort to improve riparian and aquatic habitat conditions. There has been a substantial amount of coordination and the completion of a wide array of important restoration work. It is stated that there have been large advances in habitat quantity and quality realized since beginning of work in the 1980s. Unfortunately there is no summary describing these changes, where they have occurred and what treatments, or combination of treatments appear to have been responsible for them. The project complements the Asotin Subbasin Plan, Snake River Regional Recovery Plan, WRIA 35 Watershed Plan, and the Asotin Creek Model Watershed effort. A stated in the proposal, the past approach has been site-scale and opportunistic and this proposal will employ the "Atlas Process" to develop a more strategic approach for restoration. As described, this process will synthesize data and GIS layers and use the TAC to identify priority locations (BSRs) and treatments. There are a number of issues that need to be considered: previous ISRP comments on geomorphic analysis and monitoring do not appear to have been fully addressed; the process does not appear to provide sufficient focus on past monitoring and lessons learned over the last 15+ years of implementation; as a whole watershed restoration project including a substantial upland component, it seems that the make-up of the TAC should be interdisciplinary and not limited to biologists; the description of how priorities will be set is vague and the role of the Stakeholder TAC (local experts) seems limited to only making recommendations on project feasibility. Looking at various reports and documents, via hotlinks in the proposal, it appears that there is a good deal of relevant information that was not included in the main body of the current proposal. One example is a wide range of public outreach and education activities. These have been ongoing for several years and likely have contributed to good landowner understanding and buy in to the restoration efforts and a higher level of understanding by residents, especially children and students, on the importance of healthy watersheds to fish and to humans. There are other examples including additional monitoring and a variety of lessons learned that were not presented or specifically referenced in the proposal. A video called “Ridgetop to Ridgetop” has been developed which is a very high quality product. The video should be very useful in attracting interest and support from landowners and the general public. This support is essential because habitat restoration often requires support of private landowners. It would be useful to get this video on the NPPC website. The video and presentation to the ISRP provide confidence that the program has made good progress, especially in regard to gaining support of private landowners. Four general objectives were briefly identified. These objectives should include quantitative metrics, that can be monitored, and a stated time frame for the expected outcomes. In other words, based on past experience, how much can be accomplished during the next project period? The objectives should also be linked to the four limiting factors that were identified in the proposal. LWD and bed scour were not directly addressed by the objectives. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results) It appears that there have been substantial accomplishments in this watershed and that they have addressed both valley bottom and upslope issues. There is very little discussion that quantitatively summarizes the extent and results of past restoration treatments. Similarly, there was very limited discussion regarding the many lessons that have likely been learned over the long history of restoration work. A positive aspect of the proposal is the recognition that a more strategic approach is needed for more effective restoration results. Unfortunately, the current approach appears limited to the instream and floodplain components of the project and does not consider upslope elements. Ideally, the proposal should have stated its initial quantitative objectives for each of its previous actions, such as miles of stream fenced and numbers of trees planted, and then describe what was accomplished and the associated results, for example reduced water temperature or healthier riparian vegetation. Information about accomplishments was provided in linked implementation reports, but a summary of this key information should have been in the proposal so that reviewers and the Council can readily see what has been accomplished. In the linked reports, it was not clear whether the reported activities achieved the initial objectives, in part because quantitative objectives probably were not developed for the initial projects. Proposals such as this should estimate what they hope to accomplish and then evaluate what was accomplished. This is not monitoring project effectiveness, rather it is documenting accomplishments, which is a task that should be easy to do. Presentation of this information would facilitate a roll-up of habitat accomplishments across all watersheds in the Columbia basin. The proposal attempted to address comments from the previous ISRP review. The program consulted with a BPA geomorphologist, but it is not clear to what extent the prioritization process will account for geomorphic processes, as suggested by the ISRP. The ISRP also asked for monitoring and assessment, but the sponsors have not addressed this issue other than to respond that the project is a habitat project, not RM&E. Some fish and habitat monitoring is being conducted by other entities such as WDFW and the State of Washington’s IMW. It appears that the annual implementation report contains much of this information even though the proposal does not. Evaluation of Results There appears to have been a good deal of productive work, coordination, and the completion of a wide array of activities over the life of this project. Unfortunately, there is a limited discussion of actual results other than the statement "to date, large advances in habitat quantity and quality have been realized." A specific example of where a description of results has not been provided is the channel, re-meander project that was completed in 2005 where nearly a mile of stream was treated on lower George Creek. The project was completed more than 7 years ago, and yet there is little discussion of the results of this very intensive, restoration treatment. Additional examples include reductions in sediment input from the use of no-till practices, revegetation of riparian areas and fencing and planting. There have clearly been important results from these treatments, but no quantitative measures or estimates are provided. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions There is a cursory discussion of emerging limiting factors that only addresses non-native plant species. Surprisingly, there is no discussion of climate change and possible effects on stream temperature, stream flow, or potential changes in riparian vegetation. Perhaps a key limiting factor, though not emerging, is private property ownership that might prevent priority actions. The proposal highlights cooperation with landowners, but it did not identify the number of priority actions that may be constrained by unwilling landowners. How will this compromise or adversely impact adjacent habitat restoration activities?Nevertheless, the ISRP was impressed with the informative presentation and video that documented significant progress in gaining support by private landowner to protect and restore habitat. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The proposal generally describes the type of actions that will be implemented as deliverables. The proposal should quantify these deliverables so that completed actions can be compared with what was proposed. For example, how many acres, or stream miles, of riparian vegetation is proposed to be planted during the project period? Each deliverable should have a quantitative objective so that progress against the objectives can be documented. Plus, it would be good to know how much might be accomplished with the proposed budget. This type of information is needed for habitat restoration efforts throughout the Columbia basin so that the Council and planners can readily see what is being proposed and what is being accomplished. No details are provided on when this work will be accomplished or evaluated. Methods or rationales to achieve objectives were not fully described. It is not clear how some deliverables will achieve the stated objective(s). For example, how will removal of noxious weeds reduce embeddedness in the stream channel? Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org Overall, this proposal is weak regarding comprehensive monitoring for a long-term, whole watershed restoration project. It is important that a coherent monitoring plan be developed for the watershed restoration program and is one that integrates the range of activities by all players. The monitoring plan should be strategic and build on experience gained in past efforts. It should also incorporate ongoing efforts such as those for the IMW being done by the State of Washington. Monitoring should include a base level of implementation and compliance monitoring for all SWCD projects. There is, and has been, a wide variety of monitoring activities over the long life of the project. Results of the evaluation of these efforts are not provided or discussed. A summary of past monitoring activities and findings is overdue for this project. As stated above, this is an IMW for the State of Washington, and there is monitoring for fish response to restoration ongoing. There is no discussion of results or discussion as to any linkage with other monitoring. Also, there is no mention of ISEMP/CHAMP or AEM or how this will be incorporated into the current plans for monitoring. These efforts may serve the needs for effectiveness monitoring if they are integrated with the ongoing habitat restoration effort.
The ISRP was impressed by the sponsor’s presentation and the video that documented the program’s success in gaining support by private landowners for habitat restoration activities. Communication with private landowners and gaining their support is a key achievement of this project. The ISRP is encouraged that this effort will lead to other willing participants in habitat restoration. The ISRP's qualifications should be addressed in contracting, and the ISRP would like to see a progress report in 2014. Qualifications include: Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 3:42:06 PM. |
|
Documentation Links: |
|
Assessment Number: | 1994-018-05-NPCC-20090924 |
---|---|
Project: | 1994-018-05 - Asotin Creek Enhancement and Restoration |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Approved Date: | 10/23/2006 |
Recommendation: | Fund |
Comments: | ISRP fundable qualified: Programmatic Issue: habitat m&e. Sponsors should address ISRP concern next time they report to Bonnevilles (copy to Council) |
Assessment Number: | 1994-018-05-ISRP-20060831 |
---|---|
Project: | 1994-018-05 - Asotin Creek Enhancement and Restoration |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Completed Date: | 8/31/2006 |
Final Round ISRP Date: | None |
Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) |
Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
The ISRP recommends the project as fundable with the qualifications that geomorphological watershed analysis and monitoring and assessment results from previous projects be incorporated into the proposal. This qualification applies to both Asotin SWCD projects.
Our qualification to the fundable recommendation is to point to the self-acknowledged "snapshot" nature of the Subbasin Plan, and the lack of geomorphic process analysis that is a crucial part of understanding what should be done where and when to rehabilitate streams in Asotin County. The next review of the Subbasin Plan should include a review of the fluvial geomorphology, as context for proposed actions in the revised plan. Our second qualification is that evaluation of monitoring and assessment of previous projects ought to be submitted prior to the second year of funding. The sponsors need to more fully describe how the efforts to manage and improve the uplands and riparian areas tie into the stream work. It is essential to rehabilitate riparian buffer zones to complement conservation measures in the agricultural areas and in an attempt to stabilize the over-widened creek. The proposers' response indicates clearly that they are relying on the Asotin Subbasin Plan for identification of their proposed projects, as they should be. They mention changes in agricultural practices etc that are in response to the passage in the Subbasin Plan: "Historic and current land use practices have altered the hydrologic cycle of Asotin Creek. Farming, timber harvesting, and urbanization have changed the water cycle, reducing water infiltration and accelerating runoff. To a lesser extent, modifications of the riparian zone, including tree removal, road building, grazing, soil compaction, and flood control projects also altered Asotin Creek hydrology… Asotin Creek is now wider and shallower than it was historically. Changes in the hydrologic cycle are demonstrated by excessive runoff, altered peak flow regimes, lack of ground water recharge, reduction in soil moisture storage, and low late-season flow (Figure 2-3). Stream channel straightening, an increase in slope, and flow velocity have caused a loss of instream fish habitat, especially pools." However, the problem faced in this subbasin is one of recovery from severe degradation, as is clearly stated on p.12 of the Subbasin Plan: "Asotin Creek historically had a less severe gradient, a meandering flow pattern with point bars that formed pools and riffles, and well developed floodplain connections. The point bars provided habitat for an entire aquatic community of plants and animals. The stream channel had long, deep pools and a well-developed thalweg. Today, much of Asotin Creek and its tributaries have been straightened, diked, or relocated. The straight, wide and shallow channel continuously adjusts in order to compensate for alterations to channel shape and location, floodplain disconnections, and modifications to runoff patterns. Flood events in conjunction with these channel modifications have resulted in a braided channel lacking instream structure, pools, and woody riparian vegetation (NRCS 2001). The loss of well developed thalwegs with naturally functioning point bars is responsible for much of the loss of fish habitat." In this situation, rehabilitating existing riparian zones may be necessary while re-establishing the dynamic equilibrium of the channel. This will eventually require redefinition of the riparian zone and the existing work will need to be extended accordingly. Unfortunately, the proposers' belief that riparian zone recovery will lead to channel recovery is unlikely to be borne out, although a dense riparian stand will act to filter sediment leaving the land, or being carried downstream in a flood occupying the floodplain - where it is still connected hydrologically. |
|
Documentation Links: |
|
Assessment Number: | 1994-018-05-INLIEU-20090521 |
---|---|
Project Number: | 1994-018-05 |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Completed Date: | 10/6/2006 |
In Lieu Rating: | Problems May Exist |
Cost Share Rating: | 2 - May be reasonable |
Comment: | Multiple restoration activities; multiple other entities potentially authorized/required to conduct; need confirmation that funding not applied for entities already required to conduct the work |
Assessment Number: | 1994-018-05-CAPITAL-20090618 |
---|---|
Project Number: | 1994-018-05 |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Completed Date: | 2/27/2007 |
Capital Rating: | Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding |
Capital Asset Category: | None |
Comment: | None |
Name | Role | Organization |
---|---|---|
Megan Stewart | Project Lead | Asotin County Conservation District |
Catherine Clark | Env. Compliance Lead | Bonneville Power Administration |
David Kaplowe | Supervisor | Bonneville Power Administration |
Andre L'Heureux (Inactive) | Project SME | Bonneville Power Administration |
Matthew Schwartz | Project Manager | Bonneville Power Administration |
Brad Riehle | Technical Contact | Asotin County Conservation District |